To Amend The Domestic Abuse Act Of 1991; To Provide For Remote Testimony In Certain Instances In A Hearing Under The Domestic Abuse Act Of 1991; And To Provide Oversight For A Domestic Violence Intervention Program.
HB1829 amends Arkansas’s Domestic Abuse Act of 1991 in several ways. It expands and clarifies definitions related to domestic abuse, including “course of control” and “disturbing the peace,” and updates the petition process for orders of protection. The bill also revises the standard petition form and related filing rules to better protect petitioner privacy, including allowing address omission in many filings and removing any suggestion that Social Security numbers be included.
The bill also broadens the remedies a court may order in an order-of-protection case. It expressly authorizes temporary custody, support, attorney’s fees, protection of pets, restrictions on utility and insurance interference, and temporary possession of key personal and financial documents and property. In addition, it creates a new provision allowing testimony by a party or child outside the physical presence of the other party in certain hearings, and it requires county sheriffs to designate officers to serve protection-order papers quickly and keep detailed service logs. It also adds an expedited contempt hearing process for alleged violations of protection orders.
A major new component is oversight of domestic violence intervention programs. The bill places certification responsibility with the Arkansas Child Abuse/Rape/Domestic Violence Commission and sets out program purposes and operating principles, emphasizing accountability for abusers, victim safety, and the use of nonviolent strategies. It also states that such programs are not substitutes for primary intervention when violence is ongoing and that providers should not act as advocates for abusers in court.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and victim-protective. The bill passed third reading in the House unanimously, 94-0, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement with its goals of improving safety, access to court, and enforcement of protection orders. The absence of recorded committee controversy also suggests little formal opposition in the available record.
The main points of potential contention are procedural and implementation-related rather than ideological. These include the expanded sheriff service obligations, the logistics of remote testimony and cross-examination, and the state’s new certification and oversight role for intervention programs. The bill also reflects a policy choice to treat coercive control and emotional intimidation as part of domestic abuse, which may be significant in how courts interpret and enforce protection orders.
HB1829 would amend multiple sections of Arkansas Code Title 9, Chapter 15, the Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, and would repeal Arkansas Code § 9-15-219 while folding its concepts into other provisions. It would change petition filing and form requirements, expand the relief available in protection-order cases, authorize remote testimony in certain hearings, impose new service duties on county sheriffs, and create a certification framework for domestic violence intervention programs under the Arkansas Child Abuse/Rape/Domestic Violence Commission. The bill directly affects petitioners, respondents, courts, sheriffs, clerks, domestic violence shelters, and intervention program providers.
The available voting history indicates very strong support for the bill: it passed third reading in the House with 94 yeas and 0 nays. With no committee transcript available and no recorded opposition in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears favorable, centered on improving victim safety, court access, and enforcement of domestic violence protections.
No explicit opposition appears in the provided record, but the bill’s most notable policy choices could draw scrutiny over implementation. These include requiring sheriffs to attempt service within two hours and maintain detailed logs, allowing testimony outside the physical presence of the other party, and placing certification/oversight of intervention programs with a state commission. The bill’s expanded definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control and disturbing the peace may also be a point of legal or interpretive debate, though no specific objections are recorded here.